Phil midterm 2 Flashcards
3 views of testimony
Reductionism, non-reductionism, scepticism
Testimony
The process of acquiring beliefs from communication
reductionism
-Unlike sceptics, reductionists think that testimony produces knowledge, but the way in which testimony produces knowledge is explainable in other terms
-we can understand testimony in terms of memory, perception, and inference
-global vs. local reductionism- generic vs. specific
example of reductionism
you may have noticed that a speaker has provided you with truth in the past
you may then infer that a claim of theirs is true and come to believe it
testimony is not playing special role, you belief is primarily based on inference and perception
non-reductionism
-non-reductivists think that you can rationally accept testimony as long as the testifier is in a good enough position
-lack defeaters
-testimony yields knowledge and it does so in a distinctive manner
-hold that testimony is a basic source of knowledge
scepticism
-testimony never yields knowledge
-certainty is a necessary condition of knowledge and it never produces certainty
defeaters
- a claim that renders a belief false or unreliable
-ex. if you believe something because you read it in a book but then later learn that the author is a liar, then your original belief is false or unreliable
-3 types- doxastic, normative, factual
doxastic defeater
-defeaters as actual beliefs
-a claim we believe that defeats one of our other beliefs
normative defeaters
-claims we are justified in believing (whether we believe them or not)
factual defeaters
-true propositions that would defeat were we to believe them
lackeys argument about testimonial knowledge
-she defends the view that testimony is a distinctive source of knowledge
-being a reliable testifier is different that being a reliable believer
-when you come to know something via testimony, you simply believe it is true based directly on their testimony
-hearers acquire knowledge via testimony, speakers must themselves have that knowledge
lackeys proposal about testimony
- proposes that both of these thesis are false
-2: if H comes to know that p via S’s testifying that p, then S must know that p.
-2*: For every testimonial chain of knowledge C, in order for a hearer H in C to come to know that p via the testimony of a speaker S in C, at least the first
speaker S1 in C must know that P (in some non-testimonial way).
3 views of memory knowledge
inferential theory, foundational theory, preservation theory
inferential theory
-our memory is justified by inference
-idea is that in general my memory has proven reliable
-ex. when I remember my name, I succeed in having knowledge of my name because my memory has proven itself
-3 problems- circularity, inference takes times and the inference would have to be repeated every time
Inferential theory -problem 1- circularity
-even if my memory has been reliable and I seem to remember it, my own belief that my memory has been reliable has to then be justified itself and its doesn’t seem as if propositions can be self justified
-ex. my memory is generally reliable, I remember that Calgary is south of Edmonton, therefor Calgary is south of Edmonton
inferential theory- problem 2- inference takes time
- make an inference
-notice it took you time to make it
-you had to remember the premises during the time it took for the inference to take place
-wont work in the case at hand
ex. it usually snows in January, I have no reason to think this January will be any different, therefor it will snow in January
inferential theory- problem 3- inference would have to be repeated every time
-cant just make a general inference that memory is reliable and trust it because I would also have to remember to do that
- I would have to make the inference each time recall something
foundational theory
-just having an experience of seeming to perceive that P, makes one justified on the first impression in believing that P, and similarly, having an experience of seeming to remember that P- makes one justified in believing that P
- 1 problem- the mere passage of time can increase justification
Foundational theory problem
-the mere passage of time can increase justification
-case 1: I prove a mathematical problem at 2, keep proof of it in my mind at 2:01 and also remember the fact- now I have 2 sources of justification- memory and proof
-case 2: I adopt a belief that happens to be true, the next day I remember that belief and my memory justifies it, so the mere passage of time turns my irrational belief into a rational one
preservation theory
- when I remember that P, my justification for believing P is whatever it was to begin with
-memory just preserves the justification
-note that forgetting what justifies a belief doesn’t eliminate that beliefs justification
-1 problem- russels 5 minute hypothesis
preservation theory problem
- russels 5 minute hypothesis says:
-5 minutes ago god created someone in exactly the same state I was in 5 minutes ago
-so this person has false memories identical to my genuine memories
-the duplicate lacks justification
huemers dualistics theory
- one is justified overall if one had adequate justification for adopting a belief at some point and after that was justified in retaining it
-avoids foundationalists problem because memory doesn’t create new justification
Kitchers argument that scientific knowledge isn’t deductive
-deductive= arguments with valid premises that logically entail the conclusion- if premises are true, then the conclusion must be true
-science is not a body of demonstrated truths. virtually all of science is an exercise in believing what we cannot prove
-makes scientific knowledge seem less secure than we take it to be
-so even if we beleive the premises, the conclusion may not be true, making it not deductive
theoretical virtues of scientific knowledge
-testability
-fruitfulness
-scope
-simplicity
-conservatism
testability
- requires hypothesis to be testable
-without testing hypothesis it is hard to see how we could come to know
-testing requires the existence of confirming evidence and the non-existence of disconfirming evidence
-ex. after observing that a number of carrot eaters live for a long time, I form the hypothesis that carrots elongate life
-I can test this by observing the facts about the life span of carrot eaters
fruitfulness
-fruitful to the extent that they successfully predict new phenomena
-scientific phenomena aren’t isolated from each other
-ex. imagine we observe people who eat carrots and live in apartments are long lived
-we can then form 2 hypothesis- that carrot eating elongates life and that apartment dwelling elongates life
-the former hypothesis will be more fruitful and more superior
scope
- scope of a hypothesis is determined by the amount of diverse phenomena that it explains and predicts
-greater scope allows us to explain more
-limited scope ex. carrot eating by those who live on the east coast in the 21st century elongates life
-greater scope ex. carrot eating elongates life
simplicity
-thought is that a simpler hypothesis will better allow us to systematize our knowledge
-when we are evaluating for simplicity we must take everything into consideration (simplicity of objects, relations, explanations)
conservatism
-a hypothesis is conservative to the extent that it is consistent with our previous beliefs
-hard to accept a hypothesis if it conflicts with our beliefs
a priori
-provides direct, immediate knowledge into necessary truth
-can be justified independently of experience
-beliefs are justified just in case they are good reasons for thinking it is true
-cogency does not come from experience
-does not mean experience is not required to possess the reason
-directness guarantees no other mechanisms are needed
-ex. 1+1=2. blue is a colour
a posteriori
- knowledge is dependent upon experience
-ex. the sun is shining- you would have to experience the sun shining based on sight touch etc… therefor it is a posteriori
bonjours argument in favour of a priori knowledge
- bonjour is in favour of a priori knowledge as it provides necessary truths that are unarguable
-ex. mathematical truths, logical truths,
